AGEOD Forums

199 CSA Georges E. Pickett ldr_CSA_Pickett NULL NULL NULL NULL 1 1 1 26 General 1 NULL 5 0 1

Name misspelled in the French style. Should be George.

He might not deserve such a bad combat ratings just because he obeyed orders to stupidly throw 15,000 soldiers against the enemy...

I would make him at least 5.1.1, and may be add some traits

we don't have much evidence in support of pickett....

gaines mill- cmd brig under longstreet and his assault was beat back w/heave losses

g-burg- we all know

5 forks- independent command def. by sheridan...which lead to the loss of pburg...even tho technically he wasn't on the field of battle- Pickett's unfortunate military career suffered another humiliation—he was two miles away from his troops at the time of the attack, enjoying a shad bake north of Hatcher's Run with Maj. Gens. Fitzhugh Lee and Thomas L. Rosser. And he had neglected to inform his men of the generals' absence, leaving them leaderless (wiki)

Saylers Creek- relieved of command afterwards.

not exactly stellar record.

i don't see any basis for his strategic at 5.... i'd don't know how 3/0/1 or 3/1/1 would play out in game, but it may represent pickett better....

as for traits...is there one for fish-lover?

Agreed...my vote would also be for 3/1/1....there's just not enough evidence to support bumping him up any higher.....if 3/1/1 is the representation on an average general, than that is more than generous IMHO.

ok, so we have:

199 CSA Georges E. Pickett ldr_CSA_Pickett NULL NULL NULL NULL 1 1 1 26 General 1 NULL 3 1 1...which may be a bit generous, i agree. alternatively we could go with 3 0 1. any other opinions?

what about traits?

Pickett was average. Average stats seem fine for him. No traits I can think of. Is Perfumed a trait?

He should get the shad bake ability

so no traits? just:

199 CSA George E. Pickett ldr_CSA_Pickett NULL NULL NULL NULL 1 1 1 26 General 1 NULL 3 1 1

He was sort of an average general. His only big failure was at Five Forks.

frank7350 wrote:so no traits? just:

199 CSA Georges E. Pickett ldr_CSA_Pickett NULL NULL NULL NULL 1 1 1 26 General 1 NULL 3 1 1

Yeah, except you misspelled his name again.

d'oh.

sorry. cut and paste. will fix.

199 CSA George E. Pickett ldr_CSA_Pickett $Hothead NULL NULL NULL 1 1 1 26 General 1 NULL 3 1 1

Is there a reason for the "hothead" trait?

rickd79 wrote:Is there a reason for the "hothead" trait?

No.


Yes, there is a reason.
I tried to propose something which can add some chrome to the game. Something that make the player realises "Hey, I'm playing with Pickett here!". Otherwise, Picket is no different from any Joe General. So do we left him 3-1-1 because in all fairness he was just doing his job? or de we try to give him something different that will make him special during the game?

OK, fair enough
I figured that was what you were shooting for....I was just curious if there were any historical events where he didn't retreat where he should have.

Some historians have characterized Pickett as a guy who was obsessed with chasing glory, so in that regard "hothead" would work. Some of this may have to do with the fact that by 1863 Pickett was itching for a fight. He probably would have been a "hothead," and extremely hesitant to retreat (He hadn't been involved at 2nd Bull Run, Antietam, Fredricksburg, or Chancellorsville). As it played out on day 3 at Gettysburg, Pickett's charge failed so quickly that he didn't have a choice one way or the other.

Pontooner would make him special. No one else has it. He sort of qualifies for dispirited leader after Gettysburg. He was never the same. It would be interesting if leaders had a chance of gaining certain abilities perhaps temporarily as the result of battle. A commander suffering heavy casualties could become dispirited or cautious. A commander capturing several forts could become a siege expert.

Chris0827 wrote:Pontooner would make him special. No one else has it.

I don't know any reference relating to that. Why do you think he would qualify for it?

I'm pretty sure Chris was being sarcastic.

Too bad, we could have had a pontoneer...


087 Chris ldr_AACW_Chris3 $Civil_War_scholar $Sarcastic NULL NULL 5 4 4

Korrigan wrote:Too bad, we could have had a pontoneer...


087 Chris ldr_AACW_Chris3 $Civil_War_scholar $Sarcastic NULL NULL 5 4 4

I like that. Good stats. You should name the generic leaders after the people contributing to the generals thread. It would sound better than Genericgeneral1 and Genericgeneral2.

i think chris's def rating is too high.....

and can you imagine...

general rickd729 has moved his division south to take harpers ferry. general chris 0827 has moved north to counter